MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations by explaining the permanence of the config header versus session-only login, and the behavior of calling with no args to get a link. Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, so no contradiction, but the description could further disclose side effects of pasting a token.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence with several clauses, but it's information-dense and front-loads the purpose. It's slightly verbose but not padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the authentication flow, the two usage modes, and the token parameter. It's sufficiently complete, though it doesn't mention the expected return value in detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists a token string, but the description thoroughly explains it as an optional JWT for session login and clarifies that omitting it yields a login link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool handles authentication for IDE agents with specific actions: log in, copy token, and use it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the dedicated authentication endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on when to use which mode: permanent config header vs session-only token paste. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'connect', missing an opportunity to rule out alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The 'marketplace' tool is a catch-all that handles search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and more, overlapping with 'toolkit_info' (installed state) and 'connect' (connection status). 'authenticate' and 'connect' also have blurry boundaries around authentication/connection.
Tool names mix Portuguese (anbima_certificado_consultar) and English (authenticate, connect, marketplace), and follow no consistent pattern: some are verbs, some are nouns, and 'marketplace' is a broad noun while others are simple imperatives.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the mix of one domain-specific tool and six generic platform tools makes the scope feel scattershot. The count matches a platform utility server, not a focused Anbima certification server.
For the implied domain of Anbima certification consultation, only one tool exists, leaving obvious gaps like listing certifications or retrieving detailed records. The platform tools are near-complete, but they don't serve the Anbima purpose, so the overall surface is severely incomplete for the named domain.